Can the Penal Code adequately address the Low Yat Plaza riot offenses?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Penal Code Offers Sufficient Provisions for Addressing Low Yat Plaza Riot Offenses

The Malaysian Bar has asserted that the existing provisions within the Penal Code are adequate to investigate and prosecute individuals involved in the Low Yat Plaza riot, specifically addressing actions such as hate speech, incitement to violence, property damage, and causing harm. This stance is presented as an alternative to utilising the Sedition Act 1948, which the Bar argues infringes upon constitutional freedoms of speech and expression. The Bar's president, Steven Thiru, emphasised that resorting to the Sedition Act is unnecessary, particularly when the Penal Code already contains sufficient prohibitions to manage such incidents.
Alternative Prosecutions Under the Penal Code

Steven Thiru, representing the Malaysian Bar, proposed that individuals who engaged in hate speech, incited violence, damaged property, or caused harm during the Low Yat Plaza incident should be investigated and prosecuted under the Penal Code. This approach suggests that specific sections of the Penal Code can effectively cover the criminal conduct exhibited during the riot, thereby negating the need for the Sedition Act. The Bar's argument implies that the Penal Code's framework is robust enough to handle the complexities of offences committed during the disturbance, from incitement to actual violence and destruction of property.
Concerns Regarding the Sedition Act's Scope

The Malaysian Bar's objection to the use of the Sedition Act 1948 stems from its belief that the law undermines the constitutional freedoms of speech and expression, as guaranteed by Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution. Thiru articulated that this "archaic and oppressive law" has historically hindered the genuine addressing of race or religion-based differences, forcing such issues to be concealed rather than resolved. This perspective suggests that the Sedition Act, in the context of the Low Yat incident and its underlying racial tensions, is seen as an impediment to open discourse and a tool that could suppress legitimate grievances rather than facilitate their resolution.
Preventing Misuse of the Incident for Control

Furthermore, the Malaysian Bar issued a warning against using the Low Yat Plaza riot as a pretext to impose further controls on internet and social media usage. Thiru cautioned that such a move would be disproportionate, likening it to "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut," given the existing prohibitions within the Penal Code. The Bar views any attempt to restrict internet access as a violation of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression, underscoring their position that existing legal frameworks are sufficient without necessitating additional, potentially restrictive, measures on digital communication platforms.
Precedent of Arrests Under the Sedition Act

Despite the Bar's recommendations, instances of arrests under the Sedition Act related to the Low Yat Plaza incident have occurred. Mohd Ali Baharom, president of the Malay Armed Forces Veterans Association, was arrested under this act for delivering a racially charged speech prior to the riot. This action highlights the government's willingness to employ the Sedition Act in response to inflammatory rhetoric, even as the Malaysian Bar advocates for alternative legal avenues under the Penal Code for managing the fallout from the plaza disturbance.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Can the Penal Code adequately address the Low Yat Plaza riot offenses?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends